Bibliographic record
Abstract
Supreme Court Law Review (2002), 16 S.C.L.R. (2d)less be serious and disturbing.If, on the other hand, the Court rejects this approach in favour of adopting what it will undoubtedly trumpet as a "liberal and generous" alternative, it will most certainly fall in line with the disturbing road well-travelled, that road illustrated by what is so wrong with its treatment of Aboriginal rights in Mitchell.This study ends, then, with something of an archaeological investigation, a dig into the ruins of Aboriginal law, to make sense of the doctrine of sovereign incompatibility, to come to some sense of how the field of Aboriginal law has come to trap Aboriginal peoples.The paper closes with suggestions about how this excavation might lead to the resurrection of Aboriginal rights from the ruins of Aboriginal law.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".